What Running/Passing Ratio are you hoping for?

[Doomsday101]

A perfectly clear summary.

I think people are really stuck on the idea that you can just go out and run it down the other team's throat. Stuck in the past that is. This ain't Houston in the 70s.

Not at all of course Pass is critical but there is more to the game than just passing and teams who can show very good effectiveness in the air and on the ground are the better offense and give their teams the better chance of winning games.

 

[dwmyers]

Running and winning. Is there a correlation? yes. It does. Discussions include..

http://codeandfootball.wordpress.co...failure-rates-marion-barber-and-julius-jones/

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/10/how-coaches-think-run-success-rate.html

However, the run metrics that best correlate with winning are based on success rates, as opposed to YPC or yardage totals.

It's more important to get that 3rd and 1 than it is to get an extra half yard on first down.

If you want a get a handle on why Dallas needs to run better, look at our run success rates, our red zone run success, etc.

We're not good at punching it in when we need to. That's going to require a much better offensive line than we have, and healthier running backs.

Analyzed in this context, the old saw that you pass to win and run to preserve a win isn't as true anymore, though passing stats tend to more easily
correlate with winning than do even run success rates.

D-

 

[AbeBeta]

2nd half also means 3rd qrt which was their best rushing qrt through out the season. No doubt if a team can run they will use it to close out games but there are enough carries over the first 3 qrts to suggest they were using a run game and doing so very effectively not just some late game runs or kneeing down on the ball

Your third quarter argument holds no water at all. They did run a bit more in the third. Why is that? Because there were five games were they went into the third with a massive lead. Further, as I noted the actual run stats - are 1st quarter 102, 2nd 124, 3rd 143, and 4th 151. (They also had 3 in OT). 57% of their run plays were run in the 2nd half.

The data show runs that NE increased their runs in the 2nd half. Why did they do that? Because often they were completely destroying opponents. The third quarter stuff you cite (and I say "stuff" because you are just throwing out claims without support) is totally consistent with a team coming out and running more because they have a big lead.

As I've said about a billion times here, their balance comes at least in part from passing effectively and getting big leads. As someone who likely heard John Madden say "They use the pass to set up the run" 1000s of times during the Aikman era, I am surprised you are having so much trouble with this.

 

[AbeBeta]

Running and winning. Is there a correlation? yes. It does. Discussions include..

http://codeandfootball.wordpress.co...failure-rates-marion-barber-and-julius-jones/

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/10/how-coaches-think-run-success-rate.html

However, the run metrics that best correlate with winning are based on success rates, as opposed to YPC or yardage totals.

It's more important to get that 3rd and 1 than it is to get an extra half yard on first down.

If you want a get a handle on why Dallas needs to run better, look at our run success rates, our red zone run success, etc.

We're not good at punching it in when we need to. That's going to require a much better offensive line than we have, and healthier running backs.

Analyzed in this context, the old saw that you pass to win and run to preserve a win isn't as true anymore, though passing stats tend to more easily
correlate with winning than do even run success rates.

D-

Now there is a good piece of insight.

However, I expect what is getting captured here is strongly correlated with winning simply because if you are, say, successful on the majority of your third downs you obviously are going to be scoring more points.

So while I think SR is an outstanding tool for grading players, it doesn't tell us much about how to call a game in a broad sense. You can call 50% runs but you cannot call for 50+% successful runs.

 

[jobberone]

Running and winning. Is there a correlation? yes. It does. Discussions include..

http://codeandfootball.wordpress.co...failure-rates-marion-barber-and-julius-jones/

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/10/how-coaches-think-run-success-rate.html

However, the run metrics that best correlate with winning are based on success rates, as opposed to YPC or yardage totals.

It's more important to get that 3rd and 1 than it is to get an extra half yard on first down.

If you want a get a handle on why Dallas needs to run better, look at our run success rates, our red zone run success, etc.

We're not good at punching it in when we need to. That's going to require a much better offensive line than we have, and healthier running backs.

Analyzed in this context, the old saw that you pass to win and run to preserve a win isn't as true anymore, though passing stats tend to more easily
correlate with winning than do even run success rates.

D-

Pearls of wisdom and for references. Yeah, NE had a very good success rate running last year which is why they scored 48% of the time they got the ball on offense. Running is critical in the RZ and in short yardage. And you have to preserve the threat of run. Nice post. Without looking it up I think you get some bennies for ypc over 5 as long as its not skewed by a Barry Sanders type back or a few huge games.

 

[jobberone]

I think you'd find plenty of offensive coaches who'd say that stopping the run is not the first order of business.

And why do you have to run the ball well enough or stop it well enough if the teams that do those things well aren't more likely to win games? Either it correlates with winning, or the correlation is still unknown because it's being obscured by some other variable that hasn't been isolated. So, unless you can think of some reason there's an obscured variable somewhere, I see no logical reason to worry about the effectiveness of the running game as it relates to winning football games. People don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's not the case.

I suspect you mean DCs stopping the run. I think you go into a game with a general game plan and you modify it quickly depending on success or not with certain plays and what the D is doing. Sometimes a D will play the run hard and try and make a team pass. There are multiple reasons for that but generally you do it against a team that doesn't run well and you believe you can take advantage of passing. But you can just listen to the Dallas DL make statements about stopping the run. I'm not going to look but it shouldn't be too hard to find. One of Kiffin's maxims is to disrupt the run game behind the LOS with penetration.

Again if you let teams run on you then you're going to have to scheme it and that will influence the passing defense often negatively but not always.

Thanks to dwmeyers again for the links that ref winning to running success rates.

 

[Doomsday101]

Your third quarter argument holds no water at all. They did run a bit more in the third. Why is that? Because there were five games were they went into the third with a massive lead. Further, as I noted the actual run stats - are 1st quarter 102, 2nd 124, 3rd 143, and 4th 151. (They also had 3 in OT). 57% of their run plays were run in the 2nd half.

The data show runs that NE increased their runs in the 2nd half. Why did they do that? Because often they were completely destroying opponents. The third quarter stuff you cite (and I say "stuff" because you are just throwing out claims without support) is totally consistent with a team coming out and running more because they have a big lead.

As I've said about a billion times here, their balance comes at least in part from passing effectively and getting big leads. As someone who likely heard John Madden say "They use the pass to set up the run" 1000s of times during the Aikman era, I am surprised you are having so much trouble with this.

They did not place 2nd in rushing attempts per game, or 7th in rushing yards by running the ball in the 4th. Talk about not holding water? 2nd most rushing attempts in the NFL but it was all 4th qrt? LOL

 

[jobberone]

Now there is a good piece of insight.

However, I expect what is getting captured here is strongly correlated with winning simply because if you are, say, successful on the majority of your third downs you obviously are going to be scoring more points.

So while I think SR is an outstanding tool for grading players, it doesn't tell us much about how to call a game in a broad sense. You can call 50% runs but you cannot call for 50+% successful runs.

Of course it relates to successfully converting third downs. Marching down the field keeps the opponents offense off the field, tires the defense, creates more snaps for big plays and more scores, gets the ball into the RZ more and should correlate to RZ efficiency. Obviously there is more to RZ success rates including keeping the other team from scoring or scoring TDs as well as passing success but they all go hand in hand. NE had an astounding 48% success rate scoring last year which was way more than any other NFL team. But being able to run for first downs as well as pass increases conversion rates.

 

[AbeBeta]

They did not place 2nd in rushing attempts per game, or 7th in rushing yards by running the ball in the 4th. Talk about not holding water? 2nd most rushing attempts in the NFL but it was all 4th qrt? LOL

You just can't seem to grasp this. I clearly did not say they only ran in the 4th. I explained why they ran so much more in the 2nd half than in the 1st.

1st quarter 102, 2nd 124, 3rd 143, and 4th 151. You need to look at these numbers because 1) they are very different from the incorrect ones you posted earlier in the thread and 2) because they paint a very clear picture.

Had there not been a CLEAR imbalance between what they did in the 1st half and 2nd half they would have been top 13 or so for run attempts. They are so high on attempts because the RAN MORE IN THE SECOND HALF.

I swear Dooms, the numbers are right there starting you in the face.

 

[Doomsday101]

You just can't seem to grasp this. I clearly did not say they only ran in the 4th. I explained why they ran so much more in the 2nd half than in the 1st.

1st quarter 102, 2nd 124, 3rd 143, and 4th 151. You need to look at these numbers because 1) they are very different from the incorrect ones you posted earlier in the thread and 2) because they paint a very clear picture.

Had there not been a CLEAR imbalance between what they did in the 1st half and 2nd half they would have been top 13 or so for run attempts. They are so high on attempts because the RAN MORE IN THE SECOND HALF.

I swear Dooms, the numbers are right there starting you in the face.

see the numbers and yes higher in the 4th but at 32 carries a game they are running through out the game it is part of their offense it helps them control and give them balance. Belchick said this so did Brady yet you are the one acting as if the run means nothing it is all about passing fact is it is not all about passing. Belechick talked about defense they are facing using dime and nickle defense and thus it is a great chance to run the ball at the smaller defense instead of playing into what the defense is expecting. They keep teams guessing and that is why the run plays a part in winning. To act as if this is just pitch and catch? It is not running is still an important part of this league. You guys run around acting as if they run plays no part in success? BS it does

 

[AbeBeta]

see the numbers and yes higher in the 4th but at 32 carries a game they are running through out the game it is part of their offense it helps them control and give them balance. Belchick said this so did Brady yet you are the one acting as if the run means nothing it is all about passing fact is it is not all about passing. Belechick talked about defense they are facing using dime and nickle defense and thus it is a great chance to run the ball at the smaller defense instead of playing into what the defense is expecting. They keep teams guessing and that is why the run plays a part in winning. To act as if this is just pitch and catch? It is not running is still an important part of this league. You guys run around acting as if they run plays no part in success? BS it does

No, Dooms what is BS is your continued portrayal of everyone's arguments as one in which running plays have no part in success. Well that and your flat out refusal to accept what the numbers I posted tell you. Of course, you were all about the #s when you posted incorrect ones earlier in the thread.

 

[Hoofbite]

Running and winning. Is there a correlation? yes. It does. Discussions include..

http://codeandfootball.wordpress.co...failure-rates-marion-barber-and-julius-jones/

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/10/how-coaches-think-run-success-rate.html

However, the run metrics that best correlate with winning are based on success rates, as opposed to YPC or yardage totals.

It's more important to get that 3rd and 1 than it is to get an extra half yard on first down.

If you want a get a handle on why Dallas needs to run better, look at our run success rates, our red zone run success, etc.

We're not good at punching it in when we need to. That's going to require a much better offensive line than we have, and healthier running backs.

Analyzed in this context, the old saw that you pass to win and run to preserve a win isn't as true anymore, though passing stats tend to more easily
correlate with winning than do even run success rates.

D-

Good post. I haven't read it yet but I was questioning the idea of comparing a YPC which factors in touches and yards to QBR which factors in all sorts of stuff. Most takes on running seem to rely on YPA so seeing another perspective is good.

I hope running the ball means something. Otherwise the emphasis on the 12 package really loses some luster.

 

[jobberone]

I think you'd find plenty of offensive coaches who'd say that stopping the run is not the first order of business.

And why do you have to run the ball well enough or stop it well enough if the teams that do those things well aren't more likely to win games? Either it correlates with winning, or the correlation is still unknown because it's being obscured by some other variable that hasn't been isolated. So, unless you can think of some reason there's an obscured variable somewhere, I see no logical reason to worry about the effectiveness of the running game as it relates to winning football games. People don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's not the case.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. You cannot allow a team to run it on you. If you do you are likely to lose the game. You'll have to win the game likely with less TOP meaning you will have to have quick strikes. Or you will have to stop the other team with turnovers or great RZ defense. Making a team one dimensional be it run or pass is a primary goal of a DC. Teams are going to run if they have a high run success rate and high scoring rate. That sets up 2ne and 3rd and short which is hard to defend as you don't know if it's pass or run coming. You just can't allow a team to run on you. All you have to do is look at successful teams. And there is data that correlates run success to winning. That just matches coaching maxims known for years. The fact that passing and defending the pass efficiently correlates better with winning doesn't negate that axiom. It just means you can score more points passing. Stating passing correlates with winning doesn't mean that run success rates don't fit into the equation for passing efficiency and more importantly scoring efficiency esp in the RZ.

I don't know where this myth that running doesn't correlate with winning came from but it's not true.

 

[dwmyers]

Good post. I haven't read it yet but I was questioning the idea of comparing a YPC which factors in touches and yards to QBR which factors in all sorts of stuff. Most takes on running seem to rely on YPA so seeing another perspective is good.

YPC is highly influenced by long runs. The extreme example is Chris Johnson of the Titans. He's not a good percentage runner, his run success is low. But he has a high YPC because he will break a big one now and then. The basic analogy is to a high strikeout, low average, home run hitter.

So success rate is a bit like a batter's average (or completion percentage). YPC is more an explosiveness stat. Low YPC may mean the back is no good, or it may mean you're playing in a Parcells offense where the coach runs you in situations where he knows you'll only get two yards.

Oh yes, since Abe and Doomsday are going back and forth with this.. the portion of the run game that most correlates with winning is run success in the first three quarters. A close read of the Brian Burke document above will reveal that.

Of course that makes sense, as by the fourth the game may be largely decided.

D-

 

[Iron_Man]

If the running can be established, I think there is a great chance to have less injuries across the whole team.

 

[VirusX]

Fingers crossed, Demarco with 200 touches...

 

[Trueboysfan]

A heavier run than pass would simply mean that we are in control of the game and grinding it out. So I'd be good to see some good ole Cowboy smash-mouth football

 

[iceman117]

55 pass 45 run... Somewhere in this ballpark

 

[jobberone]

56.17684 passing to be precise. ***one eyebrow lifted***

Precision is a process.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I can't answer this until after my FF draft!